Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 13:01:43 +0800 From: qcwap <1051244836@qq.com> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-wireless <freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Correct net80211 channel flag. Message-ID: <tencent_2E840B9C9A04A4B8FAC58571CC49903F9606@qq.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmomNCC_cvF249Xbznh4nqbranvduNqdEUkViZdLoD_aoFg@mail.gmail.com> References: <tencent_2D16BB0B925A1EA4B4BAD2454A8C4F503F06@qq.com> <CAJ-Vmon8yS5D0Q6QdCNLC9VWoKG_tuP_HLrLGzNJjhNWhXLXNA@mail.gmail.com> <tencent_89C560047561F9B8CCA8254232A98F5EC40A@qq.com> <CAJ-VmomNCC_cvF249Xbznh4nqbranvduNqdEUkViZdLoD_aoFg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Got it, thank you.
zxystd
> 2021=E5=B9=B44=E6=9C=882=E6=97=A5 =E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=8812:56=EF=BC=8CAdrian=
Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
>=20
> Hi!
>=20
> Oh, so from what I recall, implementations got it wrong in the early
> draft days with their interop so the flag values changed.
>=20
>=20
> -adrian
>=20
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 20:45, qcwap <1051244836@qq.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> Well, I see.
>>=20
>> I am newly to freebsd, thanks for your answering.
>> I had tried using this section of code and found these flags are not =
satisfied, after changing them, I can negotiate VHT80, VHT160 fine with =
iwm, so I pointed out this problem. I am also wondering what's the badly =
wrong of you said in draft VHT implementation?
>>=20
>> thanks
>> zxystd
>>=20
>>> 2021=E5=B9=B43=E6=9C=8830=E6=97=A5 =E4=B8=8A=E5=8D=881:26=EF=BC=8CAdri=
an Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
>>>=20
>>> hm!
>>>=20
>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 at 08:02, qcwap <1051244836@qq.com> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> This patch corrects ieee80211_vht_get_vhtcap_ie for 160/80P80 =
channel width recognition.
>>>>=20
>>>> diff --git a/sys/net80211/ieee80211.h b/sys/net80211/ieee80211.h
>>>> index 86ab1459cca..76c43629b33 100644
>>>> --- a/sys/net80211/ieee80211.h
>>>> +++ b/sys/net80211/ieee80211.h
>>>> @@ -811,9 +811,9 @@ struct ieee80211_ie_vht_operation {
>>>> #define IEEE80211_VHTCAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_MASK 0x0000000C
>>>> #define IEEE80211_VHTCAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_MASK_S 2
>>>> #define IEEE80211_VHTCAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_NONE 0
>>>> -#define IEEE80211_VHTCAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_160MHZ 1
>>>> -#define IEEE80211_VHTCAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_160_80P80MHZ 2
>>>> -#define IEEE80211_VHTCAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_RESERVED 3
>>>> +#define IEEE80211_VHTCAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_160MHZ 4
>>>> +#define IEEE80211_VHTCAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_160_80P80MHZ 8
>>>> +#define IEEE80211_VHTCAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_RESERVED 16
>>>>=20
>>>> #define IEEE80211_VHTCAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_IS_160MHZ(_vhtcaps) =
\
>>>> (_IEEE80211_MASKSHIFT(_vhtcaps, =
IEEE80211_VHTCAP_SUPP_CHAN_WIDTH_MASK) >=3D \
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> This is the flag change from the draft 11ac spec to the released =
11ac
>>> spec, right?
>>>=20
>>> I remember they needed to change the flags because existing draft
>>> implementations got the 80+80/160MHz negotiation really badly wrong =
in
>>> some interop places...
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> -adrian
>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
>>>> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
>>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to =
"freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>>>=20
>>=20
>=20
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?tencent_2E840B9C9A04A4B8FAC58571CC49903F9606>